Prevalence of interproximal tooth reduction prescribed as part of initial Invisalign® treatment in 10 orthodontic practices

Weir, Tony; Shailendran, Arun; Freer, Elissa

doi:10.21307/aoj-2022.009

Abstract

Interproximal reduction (IPR) is a therapeutic procedure used during orthodontic treatment and is apparently a commonly incorporated feature in the treatment planning of aligner cases.

The present study investigated the prescription of IPR in the 50 most recently accepted initial aligner treatment plans for each of 10 orthodontic practices. The number of plans incorporating IPR, as well as the magnitude and location of the prescribed IPR, were assessed.

The results showed that IPR was heavily prescribed, with an average of 71% of the 500 reviewed plans receiving IPR as part of that plan. When IPR was prescribed, the amount averaged 2.16 mm per case over 6.92 contact points. The lower anterior teeth had the most heavily prescribed IPR associated with the number of interproximal contacts and the respective amount, while the upper anterior teeth had the least heavily prescribed IPR.

References

Lapenaite E, Lopatiene K. Interproximal enamel reduction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Stomatologija 2014;16:19–24.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lusterman EA. Treatment of a Class II Division 2 malocclusion involving mesiodistal reduction of mandibular anterior teeth: report of a case. Am J Orthod 1954;40:44–50.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chudasama D, Sheridan JJ. Guidelines for contemporary air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 2007;41:315–20.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nazruddin T. Treatment of crowding teeth with interproximal reduction of the teeth. J Dent Res 1997;76:1209–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sheridan JJ. The physiologic rationale for air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 1997;31:609–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ballard ML. Asymmetry in tooth size: a factor in the etiology, diagnosis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;14:67–70.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bolton WA. Disharmony in tooth size and its relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1958;23:113–30.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Proffit W. Contemporary Orthodontics St Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burke S, Burch JG, Tetz JA. Incidence and size of pretreatment overlap and posttreatment gingival embrasure space between maxillary central incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;105:506–11.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boese LR. Fiberotomy and reproximation without lower retention 9 years in retrospect: part II. Angle Orthod 1980;50:169–78.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tuverson DL. Anterior interocclusal relations. Part I. American journal of orthodontics 1980;78:361–70.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zachrisson BU, Mjor IA. Remodeling of teeth by grinding. American journal of orthodontics 1975;68:545–53.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boese LR. Fiberotomy and reproximation without lower retention, nine years in retrospect: part I. Angle Orthod 1980;50:88–97.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Radlanski RJ, Jager A, Schwestka R, Bertzbach F. Plaque accumulations caused by interdental stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:416–20.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Piacentini C, Sfondrini G. A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;109:57–63.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rossouw PE, Tortorella A. A pilot investigation of enamel reduction procedures. J Can Dent Assoc 2003;69:384–8.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jarjoura K, Gagnon G, Nieberg L. Caries risk after interproximal enamel reduction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:26–30.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kanoupakis P, Peneva M, Moutaftchiev V. Qualitative evaluation of changes in vivo after interproximal enamel reduction. OHDM 2011;10:158–67.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zachrisson BU, Minster L, Ogaard B, Birkhed B. Dental health assessed after interproximal enamel reduction: caries risk in posterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:90–8.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zachrisson BU, Nyoygaard L, Mobarak K. Dental health assessed more than 10 years after interproximal enamel reduction of mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:162–9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arman A, Cehreli SB, Ozel E, Arhun N, Cetinsahin A, Soyman M. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of enamel after various stripping methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:131 e7–14.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Crain G, Sheridan JJ. Susceptibility to caries and periodontal disease after posterior air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:84–5.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Betteridge MA. The effects of interdental stripping on the labial segments evaluated one year out of retention. Br J Orthod 1981;8:193–7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blandy MC. Assessment of the accuracy of interproximal tooth reduction using three-dimensional digital models. 2015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
De Felice ME, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V. Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod 2020;21:28.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weir T, Shailendran A, Kerr B, Freer E. Quantitative assessment of interproximal tooth reduction performed as part of Invisalign® treatment in 10 orthodontic practices. Aust Orthod J 2021;37:176–86, doi: 10.21307/aoj-2021-019.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Laganà G, Malara A, Lione R, Danesi C, Meuli S, Cozza P. Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus OrthoCAD analysis. BMC Oral Health 21:1992021.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grunheid T, Loh C, Larson BE. How accurate is Invisalign in nonextraction cases? Are predicted tooth positions achieved? Angle Orthod 2017;87:809–15.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Charalampakis O, Iliadi A, Ueno H, Oliver DR, Kim KB. Accuracy of clear aligners: A retrospective study of patients who needed refinement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:47–54.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haouili N, Kravitz ND, Vaid NR, Ferguson DJ, Makki L. Has Invisalign improved? A prospective follow-up study on the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158:420–5.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kailasam V, Rangarajan H, Easwaran H, Muthub M. Proximal enamel thickness of the permanent teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;160:793–804.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Freeman JE, Maskeroni AJ, Lorton L. Frequency of Bolton tooth size discrepancies among orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:24–7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth-size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod 2000;70:303–7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Araujo E, Souki M. Bolton anterior tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Angle Orthod 2003;73:307–13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huanca L. How much can we trust the ClinCheck. Presentation to the European Aligner Society Meeting October 2021.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Prevalence of interproximal tooth reduction prescribed as part of initial Invisalign® treatment in 10 orthodontic practices

Abstract

Paradigm

My account